Extracted Text

The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:

Rules and Regulations

Federal RegisterVol. 74, No. 76Wednesday, April 22, 2009

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains regulatory documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, most of whichare keyed to and codified in the Code ofFederal Regulations, which is published under50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.The Code of Federal Regulations is sold bythe Superintendent of Documents. Prices ofnew books are listed in the first FEDERALREGISTER issue of each week.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService9 CFR Parts 53, 82, and 94[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0014]RIN 0579-AC47Importation of Table Eggs FromRegions Where Exotic NewcastleDisease ExistsAGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: We are amending theregulations to modify the requirementsconcerning the importation of eggs(other than hatching eggs) from regionswhere exotic Newcastle disease (END)exists. This action is necessary toprovide a more efficient and equallyeffective testing option for determiningthe END status of flocks producing eggs(other than hatching eggs) for export tothe United States.DATES: Effective Date: May 22, 2009.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Christopher Robinson, Senior StaffVeterinarian, Technical Trade Services,National Center for Import and Export,VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40,Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-7837.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:BackgroundThe regulations in 9 CFR part 94prohibit or restrict the importation ofcertain animals and animal and poultryproducts into the United States toprevent the introduction of dangerousand destructive diseases of livestockand poultry. Section 94.6 containsrequirements that apply to theimportation of carcasses, parts orproducts of carcasses, and eggs (otherthan hatching eggs) of poultry, game

birds, or other birds from regions whereexotic Newcastle disease (END) orhighly pathogenic avian influenzasubtype H5N1 is considered to exist.On August 13, 2007, we published inthe Federal Register (72 FR 45177-45181, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0014) aproposal 1 to modify the requirementsconcerning the importation of eggs(other than hatching eggs) from regionswhere END exists. We proposed thisaction to provide for a more efficientand effective testing option fordetermining the END status of flocksproducing table eggs for export to theUnited States.We solicited comments concerningour proposal for 60 days ending October12, 2007. We received four comments bythat date. They were from a privatecitizen, State agricultural agencies, andanother agency in the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (USDA). They arediscussed below.One commenter stated thatcommercial poultry farming methodswere responsible for diseases in poultry.The commenter suggested that theabolition of these methods wouldremove the need to regulate movementof eggs and poultry.We disagree. Poultry become infectedwith END when they are exposed toNewcastle disease virus (NDV), whichcan be spread by pet and wild birds aswell as domestic poultry. For example,a 1971 outbreak of END started in petbirds in California and spread tocommercial flocks. Wild double-crestedcormorants were the source of an ENDoutbreak in North Dakota in 1992. The2002-2003 END outbreak in severalwestern States was first detected inbackyard poultry flocks in California,from whence it spread to commercialpoultry houses. We are making nochanges in response to this comment.One commenter expressed concernthat the proposed testing protocolswould increase the risk to humanhealth.There is no public health risk fromEND. Human infection with NDV is rareand usually occurs only in people whohave close direct contact with infectedbirds, such as veterinarians orlaboratory staff. The resulting disease isusually limited to conjunctivitis, and1 To view the proposed rule and the commentswe received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0014.

recovery is usually rapid. There are noknown instances of NDV transmissionto humans through handling orconsumption of poultry products. In anycase, as discussed in the proposed rule,the testing requirements in this finalrule are as effective at detecting END asthe requirements that were previouslyin place.One commenter expressed concernthat some countries may not havelaboratories that can perform virusisolation testing and APHIS did notinclude provisions to ensure that thesamples be transported and handledappropriately. Another commenterasked for assurance that the cull birdsfor sampling will be selected, and thatthe samples themselves will becollected, by a government salariedveterinarian. The commenter also statedthat the samples should be from birdsthat died, not birds that were killed.As we explained in the proposed rule,and as is true in the current regulations,the laboratory performing the testingmust be in the region of origin of theeggs and must be approved by theveterinary services organization of thenational government of the region. If aregion lacks the necessary veterinaryinfrastructure to perform theappropriate tests and to transport andhandle samples appropriately, it wouldnot be eligible to export eggs to theUnited States. While there is always arisk of improperly handled samplesreturning a false negative, we willrequire that the samples be collectedfrom cull birds chosen by a salariedveterinary officer of the nationalgovernment of the region of origin or bya veterinarian accredited by the nationalgovernment of Mexico. We are confidentthat these measures will ensure theappropriate handling of the samples.It was our intent that samples becollected from sick birds or birds thatdied, not healthy birds that were killed.We have clarified this in the final rule.In addition, to be consistent with theother proposed changes, we have alsomade a minor change in our proposedregulatory text in paragraph (c)(1)(ix)(C)of 94.6 by replacing the words "anaccredited veterinarian" with the words"a veterinarian accredited by thenational government of Mexico". Weproposed to recognize onlyaccreditation by the nationalgovernment of Mexico, so the morespecific form is appropriate.